ORATION 


ON OCCASION OF 


THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE ADOPTION 


OF THE 


FEDERAL CONSTITUTION; 


OEUVERED AT 


THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 

WASHINGTON CITY. SEPT. IT. 1855. 


/ 


BY THE HON. R. 11. HILLET. 


WASHINGTON: 

KIRKWOOD & McGILL, PRINTERS. 

1855. 





















ORATION 


ON OCCASION OF 


THE ANNIVEESARY OF THE ADOPTION 


OP THE 


FEDERAL CONSTITUTION; 


DELIVEEED AT 


THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 

WASHINGTON CITY, SEPT. 17, 1855. 


BY THE HON. B. H. GILLET. 

tk 






WASHINGTON: . 

KIRKWOOD & McGILL, PRINTERS. 

1855. 




I 


\ 




\ 


t » 


1 








* 






4 








.**> y 


■ : .' • 


I 






V 



> 



/ 


» 





/ 



•» 

. 




..-1 


* * * 




f 




City of Washington, 

September 17, 1855. 

Sie: The Committee of Arrangements for the celebration in this city of the 
Anniversary of the Adoption of the United States Constitution, in thanking 
you for the address delivered by you this evening in the hall of the Smithsonian 
Institution, respectfully request you to furnish them with a copy of it for publi¬ 
cation. 

With great respect, yours, &c., 

WM. JONES, M. D., 

^ JAS. E. HALIDAY, 
GEO. SAVAGE, 

ROBT. WRIGHT, 

J. F. CALLAN. 

Hon. R. H. Gillet. 


Washington, Sept. 19, 1855. 

Gentlemen; Your note soliciting for publication a copy of the address 
delivered by me at the Smithsonian on the 17th instant is received. It gives 
me pleasure to comply with your request, and I now place ig. copy at your 
disposal. 

Respectfully, yours, 

R. IL GILLET. 

Dr. W. Jones, 

J. F. Haliday, Esq., 

Geokge Savage, Esq., 

Robeet Weight, Esq., 

J. F. Callan, Esq., 

Committee. 


/ 





s'* 




i 


•'.I 



U 






■A 



\ 



* 





» 



4 

1 « 

.1 • • f V .'■ ' * 

' » 

) 


. u:/ •;> 

■ i v'* 

^ »1 i 

*'* *• ; "I't' f-'> , 

• 

i',- U. 

f 

^) /, y V < 7*5 4 . 

VJ^■> : 


f 

\. * •: 




; ir 

u: J ' 


I'i ua.f4,.. 


♦ 1' » •■,■•' .'/, ,1 

'f ♦ ! ■ /. f »f . ##T • » V , 

• V' t - ' ^ 




lit 



I 





. y 






i 


• # 


' # 


- r ‘ 



i 


’ - 'i i • «) '* k/ 


7 - -' oV' ' 

. * 


I 



> >^T ' ■ ' 

.MTTT^ 


» S '■ i % 


1 



i I 



V 


4 


r 


♦ * 


% 


I 


> 





I ft 




5 

‘ '1 


» 



. • 




ORATIOif. 


Ladies and Gentlemen : From the earliest ages, the philosopher 
and statesman have been studying how best to secure the rights of man, 
to protect the weak against the aggressions of the strong, and to guard 
the simple and ignorant against the chicanery of the crafty and dis¬ 
honest. 

It would be interesting to trace the history of the numerous and 
widely-varying plans contrived to secure these objects, and the results 
of those submitted to practical tests, some of which failed from in¬ 
herent defects, while others were overthrown by the frauds or violence 
of those to whom their execution was intrusted; but neither the time 
nor occasion would permit. 

The first forms of government were simple, and adapted to the state 
and condition of man in the early stages of his existence. The patri¬ 
archal, was succeeded by forms less paternal in their character. Every 
generation has witnessed more changes than improvements in the forms 
of government, each having perhaps some new and special advantage, 
but containing inherent and fatal defects. Most of ttiem have been 
despotisms in fact, whether controlled by a King or Emperor, a Mo¬ 
hammedan or other religious leader. Despotisms, though often tem¬ 
pered by beneficence and guided by wisdom, eventually prove fatal, 
whether established by the efficient and skilful use of weapons of war, 
by political treachery, or insidiously operating upon unsuspecting and 
confiding religious feeling. The despot loves and lives for power, and 
devotes his means and energies to acquiring and securing such ascend¬ 
ency and control over the masses as may^best strengthen and perpetuate 
it in his own hands. 

His written laws, though sometimes wise and just, are often 
framed to secure the interest of the reigning dynasty, or to gratify its 
passions and resentments, and changed only to conform to the varying 
will of the sovereign, their interpretation and execution being subject to 
his dictation. In such governments there are no boundaries prescribed. 




6 


controlling the law-making power, or circumscribing the action of those 
who expound or execute its mandates. The despot, who, from 
motives of policy, enacts a limitation of his own powers, and an 
enlargement of that of the masses, may annul both when such policy 
no longer requires their continuance. With few exceptions in England, 
this has been the history of Europe, Asia, Africa, and more than half 
of America. It is painful to reflect that those governments which are 
based upon, or profess to be actuated by, the most sacred religious 
obligations, form no exceptions. Power, not controlled by unyielding 
and immovable restraints, has, in all time and everywhere, been the 
same, subjecting everything possible to its will. It is only to be con¬ 
trolled through the influences of education and knowledge, wisely 
directed for that glorious purpose. 

Political oppression, religious intolerance, and persecution, strongly 
co-operated with commercial and other enterprises in peopling the Old 
Thirteen Colonies. Although deeply impressed with the general prin¬ 
ciples of civil and religious freedom, they were unrestrained by any con¬ 
trolling written fundamental law effectually securing either. Hence, 
the blot in the colonial history of some of them, occasioned mainly by 
a blind fanaticism, a relentless and unscrupulous bigotry, aided by a 
most unfeeling intolerance. Happily for us, these monster feelings 
and passions yielded to a more general diffusion of knowledge and 
clearer perceptions of civil and religious duties, obligations, and privil¬ 
eges. The internal administration of the several colonial governments 
became respectable and comparatively wise, each seeking the security 
of the citizen and the general prosperity and success of the whole. 

During the armed struggles of foreign potentates for ascendency in 
Europe and supremacy in America, Great Britain secured the control 
of the Thirteen Colonies. With fatal policy, she sought aggrandizement 
at home by exercising tyranny abroad. Without reflecting upon the 
elements of human nature, she attempted to eradicate their clear con¬ 
victions concerning their rights and duties, by slaughtering those who 
were sufficiently wise to perceive and independent and manful enough 
to assert them. The overbearing spirit of her rulers led them into the 
fatal error of supposing educated and independent men could be 
frightened into obedience and fought into affection for the power that 
oppressed them. This error sent their armies to our shores, and sub¬ 
sequently called ours to the field. An oppression felt by all, induced 
the several colonies to send delegates to Congress in Philadelphia to 


7 


consult and advise for the common good. With a wisdom to he vener¬ 
ated, and a boldness ever to be admired, Congress in 1776 declared 
the colonies to be free and independent, assigning reasons for the act, 
which then commanded the approbation of mankind, and gave to the 
document containing them, the appellation of the immortal Declaration 
of Independence,^^ while the memory of those who prepared and signed 
it, is venerated and cherished by all classes among us in a manner little 
short of political and personal idolatry. May their devotion to the 
public good forever command respect, and become a precedent for uni¬ 
versal imitation ! 

A common danger united the colonies in a common effort of resist¬ 
ance, regardless of relative considerations, which controlled their in¬ 
dividual, separate action in other matters. To secure equality of rights, 
duties, and obligations among themselves in resisting a common enemy, 
the articles of confederation were prepared soon after the Declaration of 
Independence, but not assented to by all the colonies until 1781, when 
that common danger had nearly disappeared ! 

These articles, the necessary offspring of the times which produced 
them, failed to secure many of the great objects necessary to the wel¬ 
fare of those included in the organization formed under them. Their 
want of adaptation to a state of war had been clearly—nay, painfully, 
demonstrated, while their inefSciency during peace was strikingly appa¬ 
rent. With many wise provisions, they contained others that rendered 
the whole ineffectual in practice. The Confederation had the exclusive 
right to determine on peace and war; of sending and receiving ambas¬ 
sadors; of entering into treaties and alliances; of establishing rules 
for deciding in case of captures, on land or water; of granting letters 
of marque and reprisal, and might determine disputes concerning 
boundary, jurisdiction, and other causes between States. The follow¬ 
ing article, however, contains the elements of its own weakness and 
inadaptability: 

“ Article 8. All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be in¬ 
curred for the common defence and general welfare, and allowed in the United 
States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of the common treasury, 
which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all 
land within each State granted to, or surveyed for, any person, as such land 
and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated, according to 
such mode as the United States in Congress assembled shall from time to time 
direct and appoint. The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and 
levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States, 
within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled.” 


8 


A practical observer of those times says: By this political com¬ 
pact, the United States in Congress have exclusive power for the follow¬ 
ing purposes, without being able to execute one of them : They may 
make and conclude treaties ; but they can only recommend the observ¬ 
ance of them. They may appoint ambassadors; but cannot defray 
even the expenses of their tables. They may borrow money in their 
own name, on the faith of the Union; but cannot pay a dollar. They 
may coin money; but they cannot purchase an ounce of bullion. They 
may make war and determine what number of troops are necessary; 
but cannot raise a single soldier. In short, they may declare every¬ 
thing, but do nothing.^^ 

GtENERAL Washington said : ‘‘In a word, the confederation appears 
to me to be little more than a shadow, without the substance; and 
Congress a nugatory body, their ordinances being little attended to.^^ 

Chief Justice Marshall said : “ If in theory the treaties formed by 
Congress were obligatory, yet it had been demonstrated that in practice 
that body was absolutely unable to carry them into execution.^' 

There was “ an utter want of all coercive authority to carry into 
effect its own constitutional measures.^^ This was sufficient to destroy 
its efficiency as a superintending government, and reduce its action to 
mere recommendations. 

Marshall observes that “ a government authorized to declare war, but 
relying upon independent States to prosecute it: capable of contracting 
debts and of pledging the public faith for their payment, but depending 
upon thirteen distinct sovereignties for the preservation of that faith, 
could only be rescued from ignominy and contempt by finding those 
sovereignties administered by men exempt from the passions incident 
to human nature.^^ Honest and enlightened men differed in opinions, 
and that policy which was applauded by some was condemmed by 
others. Although Congress might make requisitions for men and 
money, it had no authority to act upon either, but had to rely upon 
thirteen distinct sovereignties to effectuate their recommendations. 
The delinquencies of the States had, step by step, matured themselves 
to an extreme, which arrested al^ the wheels of government, and brought 
them to an awful stand. Congress had hardly the means of keeping 
up the forms of administration, while it had no power to give a sanction 
to its laws or to punish disobedience. It might order men and money 
to be raised, but could not enforce such order. It could borrow money, 
but could not collect to pay either principal or interest. The forms of 


9 


a national government had been carefully defined, but its substantive 
powers were wanting, as eight years’ experience had clearly proved. 
Congress, in 1786, by its committee, declared that the crisis had 
arrived when the people of these United States, by whose will and for 
whose benefit the Federal Giovernment was instituted, must decide 
whether they will support their rank as a nation by maintaining the 
public faith at home and abroad, or whether, for want of timely exertion 
in establishing a general revenue, and thereby giving strength to the 
confederacy, they will hazard not only the existence of the Union, but 
those great and invaluable privileges for which they have so arduously 
and honorably contended.” 

Commercial and other difficulties sprung up among several of the 
States, for the settlement of which no tribunal had been created. Each 
State sought to protect itself, and secure its own rights, privileges, 
and immunities, while it left the national authority to crumble into 
ruins worse than chaotiq. So powerless was it, that in 1784, one year 
after the close of the war, the returns showed that the whole army of the 
United States was reduced to eighty persons. 

On the 21st July, 1782, the Legislature of New York resolved, 
among other things, that it is essential to the common welfare that 
there should be, as soon as possible, a conference on the whole subject, 
[of the powers of the confederation,] and that it would be advisable 
for this purpose to propose to Congress to recommend to each State to 
adopt the measure of assembling a general convention of the States? 
specially authorized to revise and amend the confederation, reserving a 
right to the respective legislatures to ratify their determinations.” 

Virginia and other States subsequently made recommendations of a 
kindred character; and on the 11th of September, 1786, delegates from 
New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia, 
assembled at Annapolis to consider the question of revising the articles 
of confederation. Although not numerously attended, the convention 
included some of the most wise, patriotic, and able men in the colonies, 
among them Hamilton, Benson, Dickinson, Bandolph, Tucker, and 
Madison. Instead of proposing amendments, they recommended the 
States to send commissioners to meet in Philadelphia on the second 
Monday of May [then] next to take in consideration the situation of 
the United States, to devise such further provisions as shall appear to 
them to be necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Govern¬ 
ment adequate to the exigencies of the Union, and to report such an 


10 


act for that purpose to the United States, in Congress assembled, as, 
when agreed to by them, and afterwards agreed to by the legislature of 
every State, will effectually provide for the same/' This recommenda¬ 
tion was brought to the notice of Congress by a letter from John Dick¬ 
inson, at the request of the delegates assembled at Annapolis. The 
delegation from New York, by special direction of their State, brought 
the subject to the attention of Congress, who recommended a convention 
of delegates from the respective States for the purpose of revising the 
articles of confederation and perpetual union between the United States 
of America, and reporting to the Congress of the United States in Con¬ 
gress assembled, and to the States respectively, such alterations and 
amendments of the said articles of confederation as the representatives 
met in such convention shall judge proper and necessary to render them 
adequate to the preservation and support of the Union." 

These proceedings led to the call and assembling of the convention 
which closed its labors on the 17th of September, 1787, having pre¬ 
pared and recommended the Constitution under which we now live and 
are protected, and which not only received the authoritative sanction of 
its presiding officer, now known as the Father of ms Country, but 
also of Roger Sherman, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris, 
George Clymer, James Wilson, and George Read, six of that 
glorious and immortal band of fearless patriots, who in 1776 voluntarily 
signed the Declaration of Independence, and pledged to each other their 
lives, their fortunes, and sacred honor, to support and defend it. 

It behooves us to reflect with deep anxiety upon the provisions of this 
instrument and the considerations which led to its formation by the 
Convention and subsequent adoption by the States. Independence and 
liberty had been achieved, but the means of their security, preservation, 
and safe transmission had not been provided, without which they would 
have been valueless. 

The provisions of that Constitution you have heard read in a manner 
worthy of those sublime provisions and their unequalled importance. 

But this clear compend of political wisdom was not matured and 
assented to In the convention, nor adopted in the States, without serious 
hesitation, and encountering almost insurmountable difficulties. On more 
than one occasion there was danger that the Convention would disperse 
without accomplishing the objects which had caused it to assemble, 
while the question of adoption by the specified number of nine States 
long remained the subject of anxious and painful doubt. The provisions, 


- %■ 


11 


which divided the wisdom of the Convention and had nearly rendered its 
labors abortive, subjected it to a most searching scrutiny before the 
people, and in the Conventions in the different States, prior to its 
adoption. Some of these points of difference will be briefly stated. 

During the existence of a serious, common danger, the great object 
of safety produced comparative identity of interest and harmony of ac¬ 
tion, and the States devoted their energies, with more or less efficiency, 
to the absorbing purpose of expelling their common enemies from 
American soil. When this danger was passed, the absorbing solicitude 
of each State was concentrated upon itself, to the exclusion almost of 
national considerations. Diversity of climate and pursuits essentially 
contributed to render State interests characteristic and distinct, and 
tended to increase a manifest repugnance to surrendering any powers 
formerly exercised by a State, and conferring them upon the new Grov- 
ernment, though essential to its success and permanency. Some 
desired a strong—nay, a splendid—central Grovernment to control the 
business and politics of the country, while others insisted upon reserv¬ 
ing to the respective States the most complete independence, conferring 
upon the Federal Gfovernment only those of a most restricted character, 
which would inevitably have ended in national imbecility; and although 
mutual concessions and useful compromises carried the Constitution 
through the Convention, the principles embodied in it formed the basis 
of conflicts in the States concerning its adoption, followed to the present 
time by party contests concerning its construction. 

The plan of a President and Senate for life readily yielded to electing 
the one for four and the other for six years. But the apportionment 
of representatives, and the ratio of electors for President, called forth 
conflicting views from the powerful intellects in the Convention. The 
varying systems of agriculture pursued in the different States clearly 
indicated the future locality of dense or sparse population, the latter 
not necessarily indicating a want of taxable property. The difference 
of views upon this point nearly led to a dissolution of the Convention. 
But they were happily adjusted by providing that representation should 
be determined ^^by adding to the whole number of free persons, inclu¬ 
ding those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding 
Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.'^ Direct taxes were 
to be apportioned in the same manner The number of electors were to 
be equal to the number of senators and representatives. In this adjust¬ 
ment, five colored men count the same as three white ones. To secure 
this rule of representation, the slave States assented to a marked and 


12 


strong rule of taxation, and the free States to one equally so, as to rep¬ 
resentation in the House, and in the election of President, both yielding 
and both gaining much by yielding. 

Another subject, connected with the races of men, called forth strong 
and angry feelings. Negro slavery was then extensively tolerated, and 
existed in many, if not in all, the States. The importation of slaves was 
not prohibited by the articles of confederation. Several States, owing 
to their climate, deemed slavery necessary for the success of their 
agriculture. The representatives of those States where there were but 
few or no slaves, moved a provision to prohibit future importation of 
them. Delegates from the South insisted that this would check the 
growth and improvement of their States, and declared they would leave 
the Convention if pressed and adopted. To avoid the execution of 
this purpose, a compromise was effected, by which it was declared 
that such importation should not be prohibited prior to 1808, but 
conferring upon Congress the right to impose a tax or duty of ten 
dollars for each person imported. And so ended a difficulty that 
strongly threatened to defeat the formation of the Constitution. The 
feeling developed on this question was again awakened upon the 
subject of fugitive slaves. The slave States insisted upon a pro¬ 
vision enabling them to arrest and return slaves escaped into the 
free States. Although strenuously resisted by delegates from the 
free States, a provision was adopted in these words : No person 
held to labor or service in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping 
into another, shall, in consequence of any regulation therein, be dis¬ 
charged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim 
of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.^^ 

These three questions were almost wholly sectional, and called forth 
sectional feelings, prompted by sectional interests. Whoever carefully 
studies the recorded debates and the history of those times will learn 
that upon their satisfactory adjustment depended the question of Consti¬ 
tution or no Constitution. Had the South been denied the representa¬ 
tion, privileges, and the protection due to her position, and so necessary 
to her prosperity and relative importance, no Constitution would have 
been framed or finally adopted. The Union would soon have fallen into 
chaos under the powerless articles of the Confederation. Is there one 
who hears my voice who would not, had he been a delegate from a free 
State, have yielded to these compromises ? Nay, is there a patriot in 
this Union who would not have done so ? Does any one suppose there 
would have been less slavery, or that its rigors would have been less. 


13 


if the slave States, excluded from the Union, had formed a separate 
Government ? Would the free States, disconnected from them, have 
been more prosperous, powerful, and happy ? Are we of the present 
day wiser, better, or more patriotic than those who fought the battles 
of the Revolution and framed our Constitution ? Shall we claim the 
advantages of those provisions ol the compact made for us which con¬ 
form to our wishes, and repudiate those which may be less agreeable ? 
Is there a chapter in the laws of God or man that teaches such ethics ? 
Not one!—while both award the same punishment for offences, 
whether openly or secretly committed. While we have a Constitution, 
every provision in it is equally sacred, and the same obligation rests 
upon us all to support and defend, with our lives and fortunes, every 
one of its requirements. 

But there was another question, not sectional in its character, upon 
which it was more difficult to agree. The large States claimed a repre¬ 
sentation in both houses of Congress in proportion to their numbers, 
while the smaller ones insisted upon an equal representation in each. 
This controversy arrayed the large and small States against each other. 
The debate upon it was a long, angry, and bitter one, upon which the 
Convention was art; one time equally divided. Two delegates from New 
York, abandoning all expectation of satisfactory results, left the Con¬ 
vention, and returned to their constituents. The hopes of the most 
sanguine were fast yielding to despondency. The brightest anticipa¬ 
tions were fading away, and darkness gathering around. The stoutest 
hearts were sinking without hope. It was at this period of hesitation, 
doubt, and despondency, that the calm wisdom of Franklin suggested a 
compromise, which commanded the approbation of the Convention, and 
rendered their labors not only effective, but immortal. He proposed 
an equality of representation in the Senate, which would enable the 
smaller States to protect themselves in that branch, and in the House 
according to numbers. This compromise, so wise and opportune, has 
produced satisfactory results, and no true friend of the Union now 
regrets its existence. No constitutional government or written laws 
can be made without all parties yielding something to the interests and 
wishes of others. This principle forms the basis of all written laws and 
constitutions. The letter of the Convention, signed by General Wash¬ 
ington, communicating the Constitution to Congress, contains the 
following: 

Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to pre¬ 
serve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation 


14 


and circumstances as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult 
to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered 
and those which may be reserved ; and on the present occasion this difficulty 
was increased by a difference among the several States as to their situation, 
extent, habits, and particular interests. In all our deliberations on this sub¬ 
ject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest 
of every true American—the consolidation of our Union—in which are involved 
our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important 
consideration seriously and deeply impressed our minds, led each State in the 
Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude than might have 
been otherwise expected, and thus the Constitution which we now present is the 
result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which 
the peculiarity of our situation rendered indispensable.” 

Congress transmitted the embodied labors of the Convention, with 
Washington's letter, to the several States, recommending the call of 
State Conventions to consider the question of adoption. A spirited 
canvass followed, which called forth the talent of the States. The con¬ 
tributions of Jay, Madison, and Hamilton to the public press, over the 
signature of Publius,'^ now collected in a volume called the Fed- 
eralist,'' form a most able exposition of the true theory of a confeder¬ 
ated government. The friends of the Constitution, except in North 
Carolina, were triumphant in every State represented in the Convention. 
By the 26th July, 1788, eleven States had adopted the Constitution. 
North Carolina, although at first rejecting, adopted it November 21, 
1789, after the new Government had been several months in operation. 
Ehode Island, though unrepresented in the Convention, became a 
member of the Confederacy on the 29th[of May, 1790; thus completing 
that glorious Union of States which has shed so much lustre upon our 
own loved America, and been so fruitful in prosperity and happiness to 
all under its guardianship. 

The Constitution thus adopted established the most perfect form of 
government ever contrived by human agency. Its powers were dis¬ 
tributed to three great departments—the legislative to enact laws, the 
judicial to expound, and the executive to execute them. The power of 
each is confined and limited within specific boundaries, and neither has 
authority or power beyond. If either oversteps the limits assigned to 
it, its acts are null and void. By an amendment, equally wise and 
judicious, all ^^the powers not delegated to the United States by the 
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the 
States respectively or to the people.^' This guaranties to the States 
and to the people all the remaining powers so necessary to State inde¬ 
pendence 


15 


When we connect the national and State governments, our institu¬ 
tions present the most beautiful spectacle ever exhibited to the world— 
a general government, to manage affairs with foreign nations, and 
clothed with power to declare war and make peace, to regulate and 
protect trade and commerce, and coin money and declare the value of 
foreign coin, and regulate weights and measures; and State govern¬ 
ments, to regulate and control their domestic affairs. In many of these, 
the subordinate jurisdictions of cities, towns, and school districts, are 
found in practical operation, dispensing advantages not attainable under 
those more enlarged; thus presenting a view of the superiority of our 
institutions which must command the admiration of enlightened men 
throughout the world. 

Is our national government liable to encounter dangers ? 

The Constitution is really free from inherent defects. A legitimate 
exercise of its powers can lead to no dangers. Its capacity of expansion 
has neither weakened its powers, destroyed the symmetry of its 
machinery, nor produced jarring in its operations. The Constitution 
is so simple in its design, and so perfect in its construction, that it is 
equally as well adapted to a continent as to the Old Thirteen States. 
While the extremities and centre continue to feel the necessity of its 
protective faculties, the dangers of expansion may be treated as a polit¬ 
ical chimera, too absurd to be worthy of serious consideration. The 
practical effect of four additions to our Union has exploded all theoret¬ 
ical dangers. Equally groundless are fears of consolidation and usur¬ 
pation of the powers retained to the several States by any agency except 
their own. Their powers are not only numerous, but are closely connected 
and identified with the business affairs and prosperity of individuals. 
The State governments guard and protect the citizen from infancy to 
old age, secure his life, liberty, character, and prosperity, and punish 
whoever commits aggression upon either. In a word, they constantly 
protect him, and leave him free and independent to select and pursue 
such means of happiness as his judgment may dictate; and if fortune, 
health, and friends fail him, they provide for his necessities. The cre¬ 
ation and management of such governments is worthy of the ambition 
of the wisest and best. Such sovereignties are subject to but one peril— 
that is, voluntarily prostrating themselves before the national power 
and humbly praying charity from its treasury to accomplish purposes 
not within the powers of the national Constitution. 

If their independence is ever impaired, it will be through acts soli- 


16 


cited by themselves, and enforced by the agency and eloquence of their 
press and representatives, through acts unwarranted by the letter or 
spirit of the Federal Constitution, even if permitted and sanctioned by 
their own. 

One danger to the Federal Government does exist, has taken deep 
root, and threatens numerous evils, if not fatal consequences. This is 
traceable, not to the Constitution, but to Congress. I mean the col- 
leetion of an enormous revenue, far beyond our necessary wants, mostly 
by unseen, indirect taxation, and directing its expenditure with a pro¬ 
fusion that astonishes and ought to alarm the toiling millions. No 
government can long retain the respect and affection of the people 
which taxes or expends a dollar beyond its absolute necessities. 

Those who exert themselves to reduce the revenues of the govern¬ 
ment, to diminish the number of its agents, and lessen the amount of 
its expenditures to the standard of rigid economy, will deserve, and 
must eventually receive, the gratitude of all who seek the purity and 
desire the perpetuation of our national government. 

There is another danger impending over both State and national gov¬ 
ernments, which neither originates in, nor is imputable to the constitutions 
of either—one which induces more unhappiness and misery than all the 
wars, pestilences, and famines that have befallen our country : I refer to 
that fanaticism and political quackery which neither respects age, sex, 
nor condition, moral or political worth, the ties of social intercourse, nor 
the sanctuaries of religion, but which sacrifices—nay, immolates—when 
practicable, whoever fails to conform to their theories, and aid them in 
the acquisition of political power. One of the elements of this danger 
is connected with the condition of a race whose political and personal 
condition is three times recognized in the Constitution, and the rights 
connected are as fully guarantied in that instument as any enumerated 
in it. Destroy those rights, and the Union would cease to exist for 
any and all useful purposes. Impair them, and you weaken the cords 
that bind it together. Deny them, and you destroy that confidence 
which is the charm that renders our national associations so inviting 
and delightful. May not this ceaseless agitation produce the most 
unhappy consequences? Is the motive which impels such agitation 
and excitement either moral or religious? If the former, then all 
moral men would be arrayed in its favor; if the latter, aU religious 
men would be found in its ranks. But neither morals nor religion are 
the real objects involved. They are purely political, and intended to 


17 


elevate political leaders, regardless of the compromises of the Consti¬ 
tution, and unmindful of the injuries it occasions, or the misery it 
inflicts upon others. Every art which ingenuity can suggest is applied 
to inflame the public mind, and concentrate and direct it to the one 
point. 

A judicial proceeding, to determine rights between the white and 
colored man, convulses a city to its centre, and arouses the most bitter 
feelings against the ministers of justice for executing the laws of the 
land, while a score of murders hardly disturb its tranquillity, or awaken 
criminal justice to activity. 

I am no apologist of the abuses of the elective franchise in a certain 
newly-created Territory, nor of the folly and madness which have 
characterized some of its legislation, and which have given so much 
cause of complaint. All such things weaken the cause which they 
are designed to strengthen. But why should the question of slavery 
there, where scarcely a slave is to be found, excite the political 
action of distant States, while in another Territory there are hundreds, 
if not thousands, of white female slaves subject to the unrestrained 
will of a self-created high priest and his juggling subordinates, living 
in open violation of law, human and divine, and in defiance of the 
decencies of civilized society, without attracting the attention of a soli¬ 
tary political convention in the Union ? Why is it that the victims 
of Mormon lust command no consideration among politicians, while 
the very fear of colored slavery in Kansas excites them to political 
phrensy ? Life is dear to all. Why is it that no political combination 
has been formed to protest against the annual slaughter of hundreds of 
white people on our public conveyances? Is it because political capital 
can be made out of the one, and none out of the other ? or is it because 
it is more easy and safe, if not more manly and courageous, to denounce 
and combat a distant, unknown, and unseen adversary, whose response 
is never heard, and whose presence creates no danger, or excites no 
alarm ? 

When Jefferson purchased Louisiana of Napoleon, in 1803, it was a 
slave colony. The third article of that treaty is in these words : The 
inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of 
the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the 
principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, 
advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and in the 
mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment 
of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess/^ 


18 


The property referred to included slaves, and the religion to be pro¬ 
tected was Catholic. This treaty, which Congress could not annul, 
became the supreme law of the land. In 1820, that body, in violation 
of this treaty, declared that slavery might exist on one side of a line 
drawn through this territory, but prohibited it on the other. This 
declaration had no legal validity, and possessed no binding authority 
on succeeding Congresses, and it has been since annulled by Congress 
itself, and the inhabitants thereof left free to act for themselves. The 
question now is. Why restore that which was originally unauthorized 
and wrong ? May not the people in all parts of the old Louisiana 
Territory be safely trusted to act upon whatever concerns their own 
interests and happiness? If they misjudge and act unwisely, the evil 
falls upon them, and not upon other portions of the Union. Have not 
many States acted unwisely on some occasions ? Are they therefore to 
be put under guardianship ? 

Our political theory is to allow the people the largest liberty possible 
without endangering the public good. Will the public liberty be 
endangered by allowing the Territories liberal self-governments ? We 
must soon trust the people in most of them to manage State govern¬ 
ments for themselves. When admitted, each State will, on this subject, 
be under no control but that of her people. Why wish to control them 
now ? Instead of attending to the affairs of the Territories, the philan¬ 
thropy of the statesman may be well employed at home in guarding 
against and correcting those vices, and repressing and punishing those 
crimes, whose mere description fills so large a share of our pubb'e 
papers. 

I cannot admire that charity and philanthropy which extend to 
distant States, Territories, Islands, and Continents, and exhaust their 
energies upon them to the neglect of objects at home. Until vice and 
crime disappear from among us, distant regions have little claim upon 
us to supervise their affairs. 

On the question of slavery agitation there are, however, fanatics on 
both sides. Many of the measures proposed by the South to repress, 
have essentially promoted and extended it. There are some who claim 
that slavery is a blessing, and refuse the hand of fellowship to all who 
cannot agree with them in this abstract theory, even including those 
who are manfully defending their constitutional and legal rights with 
ability and sincerity worthy of all praise. 

This is as impolitic as it is unkind and unjust, and tends to weaken 


19 


that supporting arm which constitutes a guarantee of their safety. 
There is hut one true course for all friends of the Constitution to 
pursue : they should be charitable, tolerant, and kind towards all who 
differ from them in opinion, and sincere and faithful to the principles 
upon which the Government rests, and let nothing draw them from the 
great object in view, or stand in the way of justice. All reflecting people 
will then be with them. The temporary success of their adversaries 
may awaken hope and inspire confidence in the future, but the history 
of the past is a sure guarantee that both must end in disappointment. 
The isms’^ of the present day will pass to their grave without a 
mourner to grieve or a friend to erect a monument or write their 
epitaph. 

Another source of excitement and agitation is found in sectional con¬ 
siderations. Demagogues seek to array one section of the Union 
against another—the North against the South, and the West against 
the East. The object and purposes of each are artfully misrepresented 
and studiously denounced. This accomplishes no good purpose, but 
destroys that confidence and affection which ought to exist between 
citizens living under the same government. It is fatally destructive of 
every element of happiness. These dangers were foreseen by Washing¬ 
ton, and are thus alluded to in his Farewell Address: 

“ In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as a 
matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for 
characterizing parties by geographical discriminations—northern, southern, 
atlantic, western ; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that 
there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients 
of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the 
opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much 
against the jealousies and heart-burnings which spring from these misrepresent¬ 
ations ; and they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be 
bound together by fraternal affection.” 

A source of weakness, if not of actual danger, is to be found in those 
agitations and excitements which have no necessary connection with 
good or Constitutional government, or the welfare and prosperity of the 
people—I mean those narrow subjects which demagogues torture into 
the means of elevation, without subjecting their merits to constitu¬ 
tional tests. 

The murder of Morgan was followed by a crusade as vindictive and 
merciless as it was blind and unjust against the members of all secret 


20 


societies, including those constituted as organs of benevolence and 
charity. They were denounced as hostile to the genius of our institu¬ 
tions, and a demand was made to put them down at the ballot-box, and 
prohibit them by law. The clamor against Masons and their oaths 
estranged ancient friendships, alienated affections, and embittered rela¬ 
tives. It served for a time to elevate those who occasioned it to polit¬ 
ical power. After an abortive effort to secure the reins of the national 
government, anti-Masonry sunk, without a struggle, into oblivion. Its 
successor of the present day, in striking contrast, boasts of its tens of 
thousands of secret lodges, devoted to no charity or benevolence, but to 
the ambitious purpose of ruling America, by a merciless crusade against 
a religious sect, and an intolerant persecution of all ^^not to the manor 
born.’^ The master spirits impress upon the weak and credulous, in 
secret darkness, those oaths which must make the Christian shudder, 
and which we have seen interposed in the courts to impede the 
cause of justice in maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution 
and laws. The organs of these secret combinations openly avow the 
intention to put down,^^ if not annihilate, one denomination of Chris¬ 
tians, in violation of the spirit of those provisions in the Constitution 
which declare that Congress shall make no law respecting an estab¬ 
lishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofand that 
no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office 
or public trust under the United States.^^ 

We acquired Louisiana of France, Florida of Spain, California, New 
Mexico, &c., of Mexico—all Catholic countries. Have they forgotten 
that with the former we solemnly agreed to protect the inhabitants in 
their religion, and in the two latter to secure them in the free exercise 
of their religion without restriction ? Would they disregard such 
treaty obligations, or would they fulfil them in letter and spirit as 
Great Britain has done in Lower Canada? If one denomination is 
put down,'' or degraded, may not the same spirit, means, and machin¬ 
ery prove equally fatal to others in their turn ? What Christian feeling 
or emotion of charity can be gratified at the downfall or degradation of 
those whose offence consists in a difference in religious faith and modes 
of worship ? Those who remember the history of the religious perse¬ 
cutions that brought the pilgrim fathers to our shores, cannot fail to 
know that persecution and violence often build up, but never destroy, 
a Christian sect. But, if destroyed or degraded, who would be bene¬ 
fited, or what good purpose be subserved? Is the Christian more 


21 


cheerful and happy when the waters of strife and bitterness are stirred 
up—nay, lashed into fury about him? Is it a gratification for him to 
pass his neighbor in scornful silence, with the frown of hatred upon 
his brow? What the office-seeker and political speculator gain by 
their violence and persecution, humanity and Christianity lose. 

The credulous and confiding may believe in the sincerity of this 
alleged motive, but the evidence is abundant that, with the leaders, it 
is a mere hollow pretence. America has been too long united in her 
denunciations of the Catholic and Jewish disabilities in Great Britain 
for such pretensions to receive credence. Have we forgotten the arrows 
recently aimed at the Catholic disability in the New Hampshire consti¬ 
tution by the master-spirits of this combination ? If the real object is 
to introduce a more benevolent, pure, and blameless religion, what 
denomination will they select as the standard of perfection ? Can they 
agree among themselves on this question ? If they wish to expunge 
religious deformity and conceded heresy, why do they leave the haughty 
Mormon without an attempt to restrain or control him, though wallow¬ 
ing in polygamy, and fattening upon extortions wrung from the weak, 
credulous, and ignorant ? Has one political convention in any State 
engrafted an anti-Mormon plank in its platform ? But if their assump¬ 
tion is sincere, (which few will believe,) then I appeal to you, to the 
sober sense of mankind, to say whether it is most consistent with re¬ 
vealed religion to settle its forms and faith by a political election, or 
through the forum of conscience ? I ask you whether religious merits 
should be determined, and rewards conferred, and punishments inflicted, 
through the ballot-boxes, on the evidence of rumor propagated in secret 
cabals, or at the bar of a just God, upon the evidence of truth ? At¬ 
tend the polls of an election, witness the motives called into action, and 
the means used to obtain votes, and then determine whether true 
religion is manifested by those most active there. 

A second avowed object relates to the birth-place of men. The 
Author of our religion and His inspired disciples have left no evidence 
of a distinction resting upon such a foundation in the divine record. 
They taught peace and good will to all mankind, while this new sect seeks 
to engender and perpetuate bitter national animosities similar to those 
which so long rankled in the bosom of the Briton and Frank, and 
which so often bathed Scotland's borders in human blood. If a man 
is born in Canada, Mexico, or Cuba, and comes to settle among us, he 
is unfit to become a citizen, or to enjoy a citizen^s privileges. But if. 


22 


by war or purchase, we should annex all, or either of these countries, it 
would be a most glorious achievement, and millions of aliens would 
instantly become good citizens, capable of self-government, and make 
an invaluable addition to our country. To this new sect a ship-load of 
aliens is alarming—nay, dangerous; but if aliens come by kingdoms or 
continents they are as harmless as doves. This assumed motive of 
action is as fallacious as it is hypocritical, unnatural, and unjust. It 
is only those who are deceived by the midnight magicians that believe 
in it. The real motive is to excite unreal fears, arouse and combine 
the prejudices of the ignorant, and through them secure a political 
triumph. But what is to be done if a victory shall be won over the 
aliens ? Are we to be blessed with better laws to secure our persons and 
property? Shall we be have purer morals, and enjoy a more cheering 
and elevated religion ? Are taxes to be lighter, officials more able, 
faithful, conscientious, and just ? Are the people to be more prosperous, 
wise, contented, and happy ? Will making the foreigner feel an infe¬ 
riority contribute to our happiness ? If an alien or a Catholic perils 
his life in our wars, shall he, when the victory is won, and peace restored, 
be compelled to sit on the lowest benches in, or be turned out of, political 
temples ? How would this compare with the professed anxiety for the 
colored race ? What should we say if each State should apply this 
narrow philanthropy within its limits to those coming from sister 
States ? But the Constitution, whose sixty-eighth year we celebrate, 
partaking of the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, expressly 
authorizes Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization,^' 
and it also provides that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to 
all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States." Con¬ 
gress early enacted laws to naturalize aliens. Are the agitators and 
fanatics of the present day wiser, better, and more patriotic than those 
who made and adopted our Constitution and enacted our early laws. 

These political perfectionists are not content to enjoy the protection 
of a wise Constitution and wholesome laws, protecting them in the per- 
suit of happiness. Without regarding the effect upon society or the 
Constitution, schemes of agitation and excitement are conceived and put 
in execution, having in them the ever-recurring object of political ag¬ 
grandizement. The country is ever about to be ruined, and can only 
be saved by elevating the agitators. This has been the constant cry 
of demagogues. The alien and slavery questions formed promi¬ 
nent elements of the complaint of the Hartford Convention in 1814. 


23 


Presidential elections were at the bottom of the bank agitations in 1832 
and 1836, and inspired the hunters’ lodges of the northern frontier in 
1838 and 1840. The working-men’s party had high political aspira¬ 
tions. Combinations were formed with anti-renters to control the 
Empire State. The nullifiers assumed the right to abrogate national 
laws by State authority. The secessionists claimed the power for a 
State to recede from the Union and throw off all constitutional obliga¬ 
tions. These agitations produced evils, without securing one public ad¬ 
vantage. The cause of temperance has, at last, been appropriated by 
politicians to their use, under whose guidance it is likely to be strangled. 
Drunkeness is a vice—so is lying, idleness, and slander; but neither is 
curable by creating penalties or imposing harsh punishments. They 
must be reclaimed by moral and religious instruction, and the effect 
of good examples. Mankind were never fought into good morals or 
cha&tised into pure religion, though the hand of power has often made 
them hypocrites. Still, the politician is exerting himself to appropri¬ 
ate the temperance feeling to political uses. The fruits of his contact 
have been manifestpd in Maine, where he has damaged, if not ruined, 
the cause he professed to support. It is ever so where moral objects 
are committed to the guardianship of the mere political partisan. Re¬ 
ligion itself, in Europe, has not proved sufficiently invulnerable to with¬ 
stand the contaminating touch of princes and politicians. Can you call 
to mind one real good conferred upon the people which can be traced 
to these ever-recurring agitations and excitements. 

These varying combinations seldom survive longer than to give their 
originators a chance at a benefit, and then sink into forgetfulness, to be 
despised by all mankind, including their authors. Parties formed upon 
sectional and other fleeting questions can never long survive, because 
those who compose them are irreconcilably divided among themselves 
upon constitutional questions. When the special purpose which called 
them into existence fails of success, they cease to exist, and things 
resume their former condition, and move on in the old beaten track, as 
uniform experience proves. The friends of the Constitution and Union 
will avoid all collateral questions, and devote themselves to the great 
purpose of sustaining both, regardless of promises and denunciations 
by demagogues and fanatics. They will abide by the Constitution as 
it is, and seek to enjoy the benefits it confers without permitting their 
attention to be diverted by unreal dangers or the clamor of dema¬ 
gogues. 


24 


The objects of the Constitution are thus stated in it: 

“ We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, 
establish justice, and promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of 
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution 
for the United States of America.” 

I ask you, in all sincerity, has either of the subjects of agitation and 
excitement to which I have alluded produced one of these sacred 
objects? Have they formed a more perfect Union, established justice, 
insured domestic tranquillity, or promoted the general welfare ? No 
sane man will pretend so. Let the history of the riots in Syracuse, 
Portland, St. Louis, Boston, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, and Louisville, 
answer. 

The duty of the friends of the Constitution and Union is a plain and 
natural one. It is simply to adhere to both, through good and through 
evil report, eschewing every scheme and design to divert their attention 
from these noble and patriotic objects, relying upon the purity and 
patriotism of their own motives, and trusting to an All-wise Providence 
for the result. * 

Let us remember that 

“ Truths crushed to earth, will rise again— 

The eternal years of God are hers ; 

But Error, wounded, writhes in pain, 

And dies amid her worshippers.” 




m ■ 



r-f 


';• -■ • . - 'v- 


. _■/■;■ > •*>. r.!'^ * ■ 


li:' - -' I ,*-. ' ■f/'i.>^^f^‘ ! .T :^^' Vf=?;| 1 


^itofb'f . ; ^.'^v r'ji il^fS^ ii^-' ^" 

,, „^iilE'f&.--.X-t«/. ,;)aitiWia-.,>H‘J4!afc®i‘i?i .:' " '-i. ,» 


"-r'>fr-'"i:?‘nf- :• 'i T‘^ '•- . •'■' i'J. ’ 

b'* biSSHH'^>^^'*4/ V't ■ '■ ■'■■' ^ 


./v.v jir*'x;; .*7v;>C' 

' fy^i: •' ‘rb'M-ci?i .■.>■*,:-? '?»■■• 

' ■'. ' -:• .*-\ *,• •-■.••• .. a' ■" .■■ .. -'-■••Ti.._ 1. - -L:^ .: 4»\. 


ae4i^^n‘l-?2a'r 


















